Notification No. 12/97-Customs(N.T.) amendment adds Malur Inland Container Depot in Karnataka to authorized locations for import unloading and export ...
Authority rules B+G+31 service apartment is commercial building construction, not multi-storey residential for tax classification under RERA definitio...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and held that the impugned mixed-cereal products are correctly classifiable under CETH 2106 as food preparations, rejecting the Revenue's reclassification to CETSH 1901. The Tribunal found the Revenue admitted the goods were mixed cereals but failed to establish they constituted "preparations of flours" derived from starch or malt extract or otherwise possessing the essential character required for Heading 1901; no evidentiary change of fact or law justified revising a long-accepted classification. The demands for differential excise duty and the penalty under Rule 25, CEX Rules 2002, premised on reclassification were unsustainable and set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and held that the impugned mixed-cereal products are correctly classifiable under CETH 2106 as food preparations, rejecting the Revenue's reclassification to CETSH 1901. The Tribunal found the Revenue admitted the goods were mixed cereals but failed to establish they constituted "preparations of flours" derived from starch or malt extract or otherwise possessing the essential character required for Heading 1901; no evidentiary change of fact or law justified revising a long-accepted classification. The demands for differential excise duty and the penalty under Rule 25, CEX Rules 2002, premised on reclassification were unsustainable and set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
